So, I still have the UD comments in my feed reader, although nowadays I mostly ignore them. But this one caught my eye.

Quote

JDH

So I think we already have proof of the supernatural.

1. Place X number of intelligent people in a room who all speak the same language.2. Provide an accurate clock which can be seen by all.3. Tell them them to raise their right hands precisely Y seconds from NOW.

Given our fore-knowledge of crowd behavior ( see for exapmle films of the Nazi army before Hitler ) we can assume such an experiment would be successful ( all right hands raised in the precise time as humanly measured ) and that X and Y are completely arbitrary ( space and time constraints allowing ).

I contend there is no natural explanation for the above.

1. From what we know about human beings, it was a voluntary response to raise the right hand ( they have the ability to NOT do). We can show this by before hand telling an arbitrary population of the group that they will receive 1 million dollars if they do not follow the command given.2. There is no conceivable natural way that the mere speaking of the words at T=0 formed a natural set of preconditions in all X people causing the raising of the right hand at T=Y. This solution is highly improbable.3. Therefore it only makes sense that the X people made a willful decision to tie some abstract future event ( the ticking of clock hands arbitrarily forward in time ) to a willful act of raising their hands.4. But booth of the above willful acts ( deciding to tie the act to a future event, and executing the act at that time ) being determined by an immaterial will lies outside the realm of the natural and are supernatural events.5. Thus the existence of the supernatural is proven.

TL;DR: people raising their hands when told to do so proves the existence of the supernatural (and Jesus, presumably).

I just had to post this, it's such a fine example of pure and undiluted TARD, brought tears to my eyes.

Ahh, that's the good stuff. Slipping in "immaterial will" takes it from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Why then do they blame Darwin and not God for Hitler?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I’m always puzzled by the argument against ID that involves the supposed inability to provide a rigorous definition of complexity such that living systems can be distinguished from, eg, snowflakes or a jumble of wood washed up on beach. This is because if those design critics are really saying there is no scientifically valid difference between these things then why the need for the theory of evolution to explain one and not the others. The mere existence of the theory of evolution shows that the difference is understood well enough even irrespective of whether it can be (at this timer) explicitly formulated.

If that's saying that the snowflake analogy is ineffective because snowflakes don't reproduce, then I have to agree. That particular analogy doesn't work.

IMNSHO, it's not whether "complexity" is defined, it's whether there's some evidence based reason for thinking there's some limit to increases in complexity within things that reproduce themselves. As far as I can tell, it's absurd to think that something with a level of complexity wouldn't be able to add a few more details to what it has, which by any definition I'm familiar with, would mean an increase in complexity. In the case of living things, I'd think the energy requirements, and sources thereof, would be the limiting factors, not the number of details in the construction of the organism.

(Or if discussing abiogenesis, they'd need an actual reason for thinking there's some boundary that can't be crossed without help, to get from non-reproducing chemistry to self replicators of some sort.)

I found the quoted comment funny in several ways (but I've got a weird sense of humour). The snowflake example is sometimes used by defenders of science, e.g. when the IDist claims that nature (more exactly natural laws) can't produce complexity, or not beyond a certain threshold.However, I did never see this example used to show that ID can't distinguish between living beings and inanimate things.

Then the poster says

Quote

if those design critics are really saying there is no scientifically valid difference

and thus gets it ass backwards. It's not the design critics, it's the IDists who conveniently forget the fact that living beings reproduce.

The best bit imo is this one:

Quote

the difference is understood well enough even irrespective of whether it can be (at this timer) explicitly formulated.

It (reproduction) has been explicitly formulated again and again, they have been slapped with it till their ears rang.

Joe one again declares ID to be a sad subset of theistic evolution (forgetting the mechanisms of biological diversification are largely measurably random):

Quote

Joe December 4, 2012 at 7:40 amThe theory of evolution does NOT assert that a certain class or classes of mechanisms is required to create the biological diversification observed, therefor Intelligent Design is perfectly acceptable under evolutionism’s framework.

Evilutionists!You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.Bydand!

--------------We no longer say: â€śAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ť We now say: â€śAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€ť-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Evilutionists!You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.Bydand!

And to support their dislike of the Gish Gallop... they use the... well... Gish Gallop.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Evilutionists!You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.Bydand!

And to support their dislike of the Gish Gallop... they use the... well... Gish Gallop.

his shit is clenched sooooooooo tight

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Evilutionists!You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.Bydand!

KF is a divine gift not only to Montserrat but to the whole world:

After the following brief introduction

Quote

In a recent comment clipped by GP in the Jerad thread, Keiths has used the rhetorically dismissive term “Gish Gallop.”

Let me cite:

Quote

KS: . . . with gpuccio it is sometimes possible to zero in on the crux of a disagreement. You can’t do that with Gish Gallopers.

Now, as I will shortly show

he gallops another 1,191 words of thought salad.With comments closed.

Edited by sparc on Dec. 04 2012,22:51

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Evilutionists!You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.Bydand!

KF is a divine gift not only to Montserrat but to the whole world:

After the following brief introduction

Quote

In a recent comment clipped by GP in the Jerad thread, Keiths has used the rhetorically dismissive term “Gish Gallop.”

Let me cite:

Quote

KS: . . . with gpuccio it is sometimes possible to zero in on the crux of a disagreement. You can’t do that with Gish Gallopers.

Now, as I will shortly show

he gallops another 1,191 words of thought salad.With comments closed.

The best part is that KF, with his offense-o-meter set to "ultra hair-trigger", failed to notice that I was actually defending gpuccio from an accusation of Gish galloping.

The link to the website also includes an invited commentary that sets the record straight and a second article that supports evolution quite thoroughly. One wonders why these last two weren't also mentioned...

he said, as he made out with him, over and over and over and over, again

Don't let your jealousy spoil the moment, 'Ras.

ahem

momentS

i will stifle my covetous nature for long enough to implore you, kind sir, to add some variety to the coital routine which you and gordon have perfected.

for example, you could ask him to let you have a turn doing HIM for a change. I will probably watch just about anyone do it but at least change positions or something JEEEEEZ

I didn't realised I was being photographed - papparazzo!

Mom!

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

I wrote an article rebutting Kuhn. The Baylor journal was going to publish, but literally the last minutes backed out. I was encouraged to revise it for NCSE Reports, but the formats and the Reports more general focus made it too much work.

All Kuhn did was to paraphrase Wells, and Meyer. He cribbed their arguments, and bibliographies almost exactly.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Thank you all for the links provided. I am using them on a primitive blog I just created in response to a debate I had in the local paper. A retired urologist, Dr. Professor Emeritus published the most mediocre book I've ever seen. (Watchtower quality). I created the blog hoping he might want to read what I have to say. He is unvelievably ignorant and uninformed.

Thank you all for the links provided. I am using them on a primitive blog I just created in response to a debate I had in the local paper. A retired urologist, Dr. Professor Emeritus published the most mediocre book I've ever seen. (Watchtower quality). I created the blog hoping he might want to read what I have to say. He is unvelievably ignorant and uninformed.

Why don't you just write a letter or an e-mail?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I have not been able to find an email address. As for snail mail, I don't feel comfortable with that wrt. the person in question. I wrote about ID vs. evolution and not about him. In his reply he said things like

Quote

I've made the personal choice of believing in God. Not all people share this sensus divinitatis. ...

So I know exactly what I am up against. My friends and acquintances may rest assured that mr. Aalberg's characterisation of me doesn't incringe on my wellbeing.

I have not been able to find an email address. As for snail mail, I don't feel comfortable with that wrt. the person in question. I wrote about ID vs. evolution and not about him. In his reply he said things like

Quote

I've made the personal choice of believing in God. Not all people share this sensus divinitatis. ...

So I know exactly what I am up against. My friends and acquintances may rest assured that mr. Aalberg's characterisation of me doesn't incringe on my wellbeing.

(Sensus divinitatis, from Calvin)

Quote

(Sensus divinitatis, from Calvin)

Calvist is it?! So turn him over to David Heddle. It's pre-ordained.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08